Christina Crawford Message Board
ross hunter posts on 12/28/2006 4:28:45 PM
I've read the book mommie dearest many
times over,After you read a book so many times,you find contrdictions.I saw
two contradictions.One when she first
went to frintridge sacrade hart academy
She stated her mother wouldn't her to
reacieve mail or make phone calls,but as you read more into the chapter she
stated she reacieved mail from her Chadwick School friends. And another contradiction,she stated at age 14 she
sent her mom a telegram once,and recived telegrames for the next 30 years,but again there was an entence,where chirstine said she got a birthday card from her mother.
marietta posts on 12/18/2006 11:59:02 AM
...should read the book, The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout. Most people do not know what a sociopath is, much less how to recognize sociopaths they have actually known, but not known how to recognize. Most people who are college-educated do not know what socipaths are. Get the book above, and increase your understanding of people, and realize that not all people are "basically good".
Eve posts on 12/14/2006 10:06:19 PM
Well said, Elizabeth. I don't under stand how some people see that monster mother as the victim. The only victim here is Christina. Angry Christina? Who wouldn't be angry, depressed and emotionally scarred after so much abuse?
Elizabeth posts on 12/13/2006 12:19:13 AM
Anyone who thinks that Joan Crawford is a victim of the rantings of a money-deprived daughter seems to have a rather naive opinion. Everyone knows that Hollywood is full of scandals, and a lot is covered up. So people may very well have known the abuse that was going on behind closed doors and simply (for the sake of saving a reputation) decided not to do/say anything about it...including Christina! And, even if a "cover-up" was not Christina's reason for speaking up at an earlier time, how about FEAR? ANY victim of abuse is afraid of speaking out, but when the abuser is a high-profile actress, it makes it that much harder! Joan obviously had emotional problems of her own, but I refuse to see her as any more of a victim than Christina, her daughter who bore the brunt of Joan's emotional instability and alcoholic rants. Christina,too, is a victim. Don't diminish what she went through by saying it was all for money!
jessie posts on 12/12/2006 9:01:29 PM
I think Christina is full of it. I think she was beyond angry that she got none of the money from her mother's estate and she knew that was going to happen. What better revenge then to talk smack about you mother after she is dead and can't defend herself. If all this really happened why not tell it while Joan was alive? Afterall, Christina was an adult by that time and could have spoken up. She wanted money which is why she is now putting out an updated version of the book, 20 years later. She says she didnt agree with the movie. I read the book. She slammed her dead mother in the book and in the movie. Christina is just one ticked off and screwed up angry woman. I'd say to her if I could, stop lying and face the fact that you are just pissed!
Michael posts on 12/12/2006 8:55:28 AM
God sees the condition of the soul. He said that we are sheep among wolves. I've also witnessed some painful things within my own family and realize now, at age 44, that it's not what others do. It's what I do that makes the difference. I'm not going to sit still anymore and let ignorant, selfish, and spiritually blind people push me around. Ignorance is bliss they say, but I say that ignorance is evil. Yes, God loves everyone perfectly and unconditionally. The problem is that humans don't love the way He does. Self love (pride) is evil.
The two sisters, so what if she cuts you out of her will? You don't need anything anyway. She will only be spiting herself.
Evelyn posts on 12/11/2006 6:50:21 PM
Too bad that monster didn't go to jail for child abuse, but of course it was "Joan Crawford" - and God forbid anybody take her mask off - but a day of judgement is going to come for everybody. Good luck, Joan.
two little sisters posts on 12/11/2006 9:08:08 AM
if christina wants to know why she was left out of her mothers will. its simple "because you failed your purpose to make her look good for publicity" i'm going through something similar. little sis and i were adopted for "playmates" for moms biological only daughter. now at 50 or so she no longer needs us. i think we are being cut out of the will too. all of this is rather illegical and definately immoral. hope to see these issues come up in my lifetime...some of these celebs today and adoption...wake up and smell the coffee
lauermar posts on 12/10/2006 10:22:28 PM
The original Christopher Crawford, born in 1941 and adopted by Joan, was taken back by his natural mother. In 1943 Joan adopted another boy while married to Mr. Terry, and she named him Christopher Terry. This man died in September 2006 of cancer. He had been a professional artist. I couldn't find anything about his family.
Eve posts on 12/10/2006 7:43:49 PM
Joan Crawford never loved her children. She just did it for publicity. She was nothing but a monster who even kept them out of her will. Good for you Christina, for writing the book. May God give you peace and happiness.
Click Here for Messages:
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
181 - 190
191 - 200
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.
